The “Party of No” is at it again. Republicans loudly denounced the deal that the Obama administration had negotiated with Iran, even before they had any idea of what was in it.
The first denunciation came around five minutes after it was first leaked that a deal had been been struck, and hours before there were any details about it. Ironically, this denunciation came from Ari Fleischer, who was press secretary for the president who got us into the (absolutely stupid) Iraq war simultaneously with another (only slightly less stupid) war in Afghanistan. So I guess he should know.
Three minutes later, another veteran of Dubya’s administration agreed, calling it “a disgraceful deal” even though he had absolutely no idea what the deal contained.
Then it became even more bizarre. John Cornyn (R-TX, the second most powerful Republican in the Senate) tweeted “Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care”. That’s right. Even though the deal was negotiated over many months, the Obama administration was somehow clever enough to know back then that they were going to need some distraction from Obamacare. Yeah, that’s the only reason they decided it would be a good idea to try to save us from nuclear armageddon. Remember the song “Bomb, bomb, bomb… bomb bomb Iran”?
After that, we got the normal list of anti-Obama loonies, who seem to want to go to war with Iran before we try any diplomacy at all. You know, people like Michele Bachmann (who called it a “total surrender by Obama administration”. Then John Culberson (R-TX) confirmed Godwin’s law by releasing an image showing John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart juxtaposed with Hitler and Chamberlain.
So, aren’t the hawks who are condemning the Iran agreement the same people who supported the war in Iraq? How did that work out?
15 Comments
God told them. They are the party of God, aren’t they? So obvious. “>D
Is this the same God who told them to invade Iraq?
I agree IK on the mindless opposition before reading the agreement in this case.
Could very well be. I don’t have connections at that level, though, so it’s only a guess.
I guess I’ll just have to take it on faith. 🙂
Ehhh, can’t really say this was mindless. I dont think republicans support any kind of deal with Iran outside of them completely giving up their nuclear activity and anyone with a few brain cells knew that wasnt going to be part of the deal.
You can relate it to lots of things. If democrats were about to propose a law making strict gun control, would republicans need to see it to know they are against it? Nope. How about legalizing abortion? Nope. Taxing the rich? Nope.
Can someone help me with a beginner question?
Strategically speaking, why is it that:
Relationship with Saudis: Good
Relationship with Iran: Bad
?
Things appear to change all the time, including the relationship with Iraq, and most recently the relationship with Saudi Arabia.
It’s not a beginner question. It is a very good question. And I do not have a good answer.
Anyone?
Saudis provide military bases and generally do not oppose our presence in the area. The other and more likely reason is the Saudis are Sunni and the Iranians are Shia. It’s like Catholics and Protestants to the Muslim world. And the Saudis are more central to the Middle East so to have their cooperation is to have greater stability.
Strategically the US-Iran relationship broke down in ’79, because of that the US doesnt want to be seen as backing down in a confrontation that they ostensibly “lost”. Had the revolution of ’79 never happened the US would have a very different relationship with Iran, Iraq and the Gulf States.
Saudi Arabia and their Gulf emirate allies have a huge amount of oil and the US props up their theocracies to secure access to oil. Although Saudis provide military bases this provokes a religious backlash against “infidels on holy land”, which the theocrats are able to suppress due to their duplicitous nature.
However there is not much idealogical logic to why these relationships exist, they are merely all self-serving. The relationships today that the US has with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iraq and Egypt historically are the sum of past strategic links linked to oil and hegemony.
Robert Baer “Sleeping with the Enemy”
The animosity between Saudi Arabia and Iran is easier to explain. Saudi Arabia is officially Sunni Islam, and Iran is officially Shia Islam. Like PSgt says, it is kinda like Catholics and Protestants. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that in some countries (like Iraq) the majority of the population is Shia, but the rulers are Sunni.
That was the situation in Iraq before the war I believe. Now the Shia have a political majority as well as the demographic majority.
Diogenes is spot on explaining why the US and KSA are friendly while the US and Iran have been adversaries for the last 30+ years.
Diogenes’s comment regarding not “backing down” reminds me of our Cuba policy, as well. It’s a matter of pride more than anything else.
Diogenes / Michael. Yup. It seems like the only thing we can never forgive is someone thumbing their nose at us. A country can lose a war against us (Germany, Japan) and become best buddies. You can even win a war against us (Vietnam). You can be communist (China) or whatever. Just don’t make fun of us.